Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
"be consistent"
 
PerlMonks  

RE: RE: RE: Who owns your words? A resolution is needed.

by jepri (Parson)
on Nov 14, 2000 at 14:45 UTC ( #41546=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to RE: RE: Who owns your words? A resolution is needed.
in thread Who owns your words? A resolution is needed.

By your logic I'd have to write to Plato for permission to use parts of his work in my last philosophy essay, not to mention Newton, Avagadro, Fermi, Bohr, Laplace, Gauss, Mendel not to mention Joule, Carnot, Watt, Wattson, Crick and a whole host of people who's comments, on and off record I have reproduced in the last few years. By your logic I can't even do this: little said:

I disagree!
As I said before and will continuously do:
"Ask for permissions first before you bring up a cite!!!"

Oh no! Another -1

____________________
Jeremy


Comment on RE: RE: RE: Who owns your words? A resolution is needed.
RE: RE: RE: RE: Who owns your words? A resolution is needed.
by little (Curate) on Nov 14, 2000 at 14:55 UTC
    If you cite (not reprint hughe parts) from a written work you don't need the authors permission, but a chat can't count as a written word, but more like a spoken word from person to person and not from an author to the audience.
    To put that rough in another way: If you listen to someone in a pub of whom you know he's known by others as well, would you ask for his permission to record his speaking and publish that on the next day news?
    Well, in a pub you can't make sure that others listen to what you say, but that doesn't imply that you agree on publishing what you said.
    ??

    Have a nice day
    All decision is left to your taste
(brainpan) RE: x 4 Who owns your words? A resolution is needed.
by brainpan (Monk) on Nov 14, 2000 at 15:19 UTC
    As I agree with what tye said in this node I don't want to belabor the legal issues here, but I think that your point still needs to be addressed. If I'm understanding you, the subtext of your reply is "how can I get the permission of someone who's dead?". In the cases you site it's relevant to know that copyright protection lasts "for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years." If the copyright is allowed to expire then the work goes into the public domain.

    And no, I don't own 27 pairs of sweatpants.
      In point of fact the length of protection of copyright changes over time. And for a good part of the last century the period has been extending faster than time goes by.

      Should this continue then pro-copyright pressure groups shall truly circumvent the US Constitution's statement that copyright shall be for limited terms by making the term of protection "forever minus a day".

      An interesting question for the lawyers therefore arises if you borrow code examples from this site. Legally the copyright is clear, you need permission to use it in your own code. But practically...people wouldn't post if they were going to object to your using it!

        I once heard that the copyright duration gets extended each time Mickey Mouse is about to enter the public domain.
      We're back to the lawyers already. I'm not being smart here, I honestly think you either missed what I was trying to get across, or you are being overly finicky on the details.

      The sub-sub text of my post was that these people didn't need lawyers. They added to the body of knowledge and didn't bitch when someone else quoted them. And they definately did get quoted.

      Please see my new discussion item for more detail.

        They added to the body of knowledge and didn't bitch when someone else quoted them. And they definately did get quoted.
        But I bet they didn't have a transcript of what they said at Joe's Bar and Grill published in the paper.

        There are certain expectations of privacy established through custom. I'm not talking about the "right to republish" here. Copyright law covers that.

        I'm talking about courtesy and decency. While a newspaper reporter probably has a right to republish something he overheard in a pub, chances are that his editor would require a fact-finding mission first to verify the truth of what was said before publishing it, especially if it was embarassing or damaging.

        We have certain privacy expecations in society. Yes, legally, there appears to be no difference between the CB and a node. I'm not interested in arguing this along that axis. I'm just talking about expectations.

        I expect that my CB chat will be transitory, viewed by the audience that I expect is there (as seen by a glance to "other users") and then disappear into the ether. So I treat it like I would a pub-style conversation, where I get loose sometimes and don't always think about my facts or opinions... I'm just chatting, I can fix it back up in a minute or two if someone disagrees.

        On the other hand, I expect that a node is more permanent (like a Usenet message or a column I write), so I think carefully about what I write, make sure it'll make sense in the context presented, and usually reserve opinion and controversy unless I'm responding to something I strongly disagree with. In other words, I write what I expect will be quoted and my name attached to it.

        Some people here (perhaps you) are requesting me to change my expectation about the CB (pub to me), to presume that there's not only the temporal attendees, but a microphone connected to a loudspeaker outside the building. I'm sorry, but if that were to happen to me explicitly in a pub, I'd probably stop talking. And if it happened to me implicitly in a pub, I'd raise bloody hell as I did here, because it violates what I consider to be the scope of my audience.

        So that's why I feel violated when the transcript was quoted. I thought I was talking in a pub, and someone published a pub chat in a newspaper. Further, I thought we had already agreed not to do that, but as I've seen now, that's not the case.

        I'm glad we're getting a chance to discuss it now. What I'd like to see is a resolution (soon) that codifies the expectation. Either:

        1. We agree that CB is transitory (like a pub), and agree not to publicly log it (or get permission before reposting a log), or
        2. We agree that there is no difference between a node and the CB, and that conventional quoting rules apply, or
        3. We agree to something else.
        My mistake for presuming #1 was already in place.

        So can we get this resolved soon? Leaving it ambiguous as it appears to be now really doesn't work for me.

        -- Randal L. Schwartz, Perl hacker

        Two quick things:

        (1) My post was intended to be taken as an extension to what little said in the post immediately above mine in the thread, not as a free standing node. <tongue in cheek>but my lawyer wasn't able to get through to him to authorize including the full text of his post in my node.</tongue in cheek>

        (2) I may well have missed what you meant &/or been too picky about the details. I guess that's yet another reason not to respond to a discussion while low on sleep and trying to finish the final exam for philosophy class. :)

        And no, I don't own 27 pairs of sweatpants.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://41546]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others musing on the Monastery: (14)
As of 2014-07-11 16:05 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    When choosing user names for websites, I prefer to use:








    Results (232 votes), past polls